nitromefandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:RFA time limit
As discussed on the chat, I think that we should have a time limit for how long RFA's are allowed to be up. Many of our RFA's will attract much discussion, but then suddenly cease activity with no final verdict. I think after X amount of time (to be discussed here), RFA's should either be Accepted/declined(/cancelled?). Let the conversation begin. 21:53, December 28, 2013 (UTC) I think about 2/3 weeks might be good or a month if this is like one of those things that it comes then it's gone and then it comes again Klemen702 (talk) 22:14, December 28, 2013 (UTC) :I agree with Klemen. 22:31, December 28, 2013 (UTC) ::Two weeks. Usually RFAs should only run for one, but we're a little low on users who participate in these discussions, so I think we need some extra time to come to a decision. 22:44, December 28, 2013 (UTC) :::I don't think they should have a time limit, the RFA gets finished when everyone is happy with the decision. Of course, that is only if the RFA doesn't violate any rules. If we put a two week limit, what if we're in the middle of some question to the user, or someone is about to highlight some RFA-changing topic? -- 01:01, December 29, 2013 (UTC) ::::Those questions and concerns should be voiced in that 2-week period, when the request is still very relevant. If the user is going to be for those 2 weeks, and does not answer a single question or anything, we could put on temporary hold until they return. 02:00, December 29, 2013 (UTC) :::::Yes, I think limiting a request to when it is still relevant is a good idea. I am unsure about the amount of time, though two weeks sounds good. -- 02:40, December 29, 2013 (UTC) (reset indent) Obviously the two week limit is only a guideline, and if we're in the middle of some intense discussion that happens to last over the two weeks, then we can extend it another week. It can be flexible. But a time limit is necessary to reach conclusions quicker, and basically just get things done. These current RFAs that popped up while I was gone further enforce this point. Back when I nominated SQhi for admin, he was very active on this wiki, and helpful in the areas where I felt he could benefit from the admin tools most. That RFA was filed back in September, where his actions reflected why I felt he was most suitable for admin over Ayernam at the time. But it's only now that NOBODY decides it's okay to close the adminship request, when SQhi has suddenly become inactive and the request has been delayed for too long. Particularly the reason I think this wiki barely reaches a decision half the time is because we don't set a time limit. When a discussion runs dry, it gets bumped again, and the same questions get asked over and over. Regarding these RFAs, there was a decision that was reached for them. And at that time, it would have been perfect for a bureaucrat to close the requests. But now we have waited too long, and it may be best to shelve the current requests. Regarding what NOBODY said, a unanimous decision is not necessary to conclude an RFA or any discussion. In fact, as this wiki grows and more users participate in discussions, it's almost guaranteed that not everyone will agree with the proposed change. If you wait for "everyone to be happy with it", all discussions will remain in stasis. Keep in mind that consensus is never permanent, since the community changes over time. Sometimes old rules become no longer viable, or maybe a user still disagrees with a recent consensus enough to start a discussion again. I'm not saying that a time limit should always be enforced on every RFA regardless of their situation, but RFAs often concern the situation of the community at that particular moment, and this could all change drastically if a decision isn't made for two, three months. The time limit would be more of a guideline: a bureaucrat might check back seven days after the request was made, and if users who have participated in the discussion seem to have reached a decision, then close the discussion and enforce that decision. If they still seem to be engaged in a discussion, give it another week. We do want to ensure consistency, but we shouldn't robotically enforce time constraints without being able to examine the current situation. 08:56, December 29, 2013 (UTC) :I agree with this. One of the major problems in getting things done on this wiki is that things get forgotten and left behind all the time. I think we need a bureaucrat/admin who will regularly check up on these community discussions and try to settle them when necessary. This does not only apply to RFAs, but also forums, talk page discussions, etc. On a related note, can only admins close a forum or request closure? There are several forums out which I think should be closed by now. -- 19:19, December 29, 2013 (UTC) ::I agree completely with RSK. Ayernam, what forum posts do you think need to be closed? -- 01:34, December 30, 2013 (UTC) :::Well, I suppose Disambiguation Standardization is the only one that can be closed at the moment. The other ongoing discussions were simply left, though, where consensus could have been reached fairly easily. -- 02:47, December 30, 2013 (UTC) ::::Speaking of closing, is it time to close this one? I'm pretty sure everyone agrees with the (flexible) 2-week time limit. 18:49, December 30, 2013 (UTC) :::::Seeing as you started this discussion two days ago, I would give it a few more days just so other users can participate if they'd like. If we don't get anything, close it. 19:51, December 30, 2013 (UTC) (Reset Indent) I agree with the two-week time limit as well, with some lenience based on the sitiation. 01:45, December 31, 2013 (UTC) :Me to. -- 03:11, December 31, 2013 (UTC) ::Two weeks is has been, so I now denounce this thread closed. 02:36, January 15, 2014 (UTC)